Quantitative comparison of automatic and manual IMRT optimization for prostate cancer: the benefits of DVH prediction

A recent publication indicated that the patient anatomical feature (PAF) model was capable of predicting optimal objectives based on past experience. In this study, the benefits of IMRT optimization using PAF-predicted objectives as guidance for prostate were evaluated. Three different optimization methods were compared.1) Expert Plan: Ten prostate cases (16 plans) were planned by an expert planner using conventional trial-and-error approach started with institutional modified OAR and PTV constraints. Optimization was stopped at 150 iterations and that plan was saved as Expert Plan. 2) Clinical Plan: The planner would keep working on the Expert Plan till he was satisfied with the dosimetric quality and the final plan was referred to as Clinical Plan. 3) PAF Plan: A third sets of plans for the same ten patients were generated fully automatically using predicted DVHs as guidance. The optimization was based on PAF-based predicted objectives, and was continued to 150 iterations without human interaction. DMAX and D98% for PTV, DMAX for femoral heads, DMAX, D10cc, D25%/D17%, and D40% for bladder/rectum were compared. Clinical Plans are further optimized with more iterations and adjustments, but in general provided limited dosimetric benefits over Expert Plans. PTV D98% agreed within 2.31% among Expert, Clinical, and PAF plans. Between Clinical and PAF Plans, differences for DMAX of PTV, bladder, and rectum were within 2.65%, 2.46%, and 2.20%, respectively. Bladder D10cc was higher for PAF but < 1.54% in general. Bladder D25% and D40% were lower for PAF, by up to 7.71% and 6.81%, respectively. Rectum D10cc, D17%, and D40% were 2.11%, 2.72%, and 0.27% lower for PAF, respectively. DMAX for femoral heads were comparable (< 35 Gy on average). Compared to Clinical Plan (Primary + Boost), the average optimization time for PAF plan was reduced by 5.2 min on average, with a maximum reduction of 7.1min. Total numbers of MUs per plan for PAF Plans were lower than Clinical Plans, indicating better delivery efficiency. The PAF-guided planning process is capable of generating clinical-quality prostate IMRT plans with no human intervention. Compared to manual optimization, this automatic optimization increases planning and delivery efficiency, while maintainingplan quality.